Err, I wonder what percent of people think parking tickets should be under $5. Not sure that means it's a good policy.
Sweet sanity: 75% of Americans say infringement fines should be under $100
51–60 of 125 posts
Re: Sweet sanity: 75% of Americans say infringement fines should be under $100
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
I must be misunderstanding your proposal, because on the face of it that seems to be so colossally ridiculous that I can't believe it is what you intended. Did you misstate your proposal? There would be virtually no disincentive to infringement under that proposal. Why not just propose eliminating copyright?
The disincentive is having to pay for the thing you pirated. Not to mention attorney fees if you decide to fight the charge.
[deleted]
Re: Sweet sanity: 75% of Americans say infringement fines should be under $100
#53In other news, bank robbers say bank robberies should be punished by fines under $100.
First, it does indicate a problem with the copyright system when such a large number of people (+50%, per Free Culture) are 'felons' under US law and liable for hundreds of thousands in damages. Second, wouldn't it be reasonable for the bank robbers to request that they're not sentenced to death for robbing banks? Can't they argue the punishment doesn't match the crime?
I disagree. +50% of people probably think their taxes should be much lower. Does that necessarily indicate our taxes are way too high?
Re: Sweet sanity: 75% of Americans say infringement fines should be under $100
#54While that is just plain common sense, there are still problems. If the fine is no great hardship and your chance of getting caught is less than 1%, it's rational to always infringe rather than pay. Raising the rate of enforcement would be hard since $100 doesn't cover the court costs and thus the industry would be losing money on every case — even ones they win.
As we know, however, people simply aren't the rational economic agents that the economic giants of yore held them to be. Most people would be happy to pay if the legitimate product was better and more convenient than the pirated version. It isn't. See Gabe Newell's take on piracy. Valve's certainly done well in that respect. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLC_zZ5fqFk (piracy bit @1:05, whole interview is worth watchi…
I'm not sure I get your point. If someone finds the legitimate product is not better or more convenient than the pirated product, isn't the rational choice to go for the pirated one?
Re: Sweet sanity: 75% of Americans say infringement fines should be under $100
#55Surveying people on what fines anything should be is ridiculous.
I once made the mistake of surveying people what software product prices should be. Surprise surprise the average was about $15, which I suspect was just as much as they could say without actually asking for free.
Re: Sweet sanity: 75% of Americans say infringement fines should be under $100
#56Only 52 precent of American adults support punishment at all It seems the real story is that 48 percent support no penalty at all. Why the misleading (and inaccurate) headline?
Because no penalty is functionally the same as a $0 fine, which is well under $100. (if there are nth-time offender bumps to the fine price, then they become different, but that is not studied here).
Re: Sweet sanity: 75% of Americans say infringement fines should be under $100
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of the time, the size of the fine (or the prison sentence) is a function of the probability of being caught. As an example, let's say the economic gain of a single instance of movie piracy is $25, only 1% of all pirates are caught, and the cost of prosecuting someone is $1,000. So you charge a $250,000 fine, and that gets people's attention. Economists talk about indifference curves in place of regular price cu…
if that's the case, then are you suggesting the fines should be bigger, since 46% of the population doesn't seem to care about the current fines?
No, I'm just introducing this to give you an idea of why those bizarrely large fines exist in the first place. The economic theory is that law should incentivize people to act a certain way, and that if the odds of prosecution are low than the deterrent effect has to be made up on the sentencing side instead.
I don't really know what the 'right' policy is.
Re: Sweet sanity: 75% of Americans say infringement fines should be under $100
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
I must be misunderstanding your proposal, because on the face of it that seems to be so colossally ridiculous that I can't believe it is what you intended. Did you misstate your proposal? There would be virtually no disincentive to infringement under that proposal. Why not just propose eliminating copyright?
The disincentive is having to pay for the thing you pirated. Not to mention attorney fees if you decide to fight the charge.
Case 1: you decide not to pirate. You pay retail price.
Case 2: you decide to pirate. You pay 0 with above a 99% chance. If you do get caught, you can pay the minimal retail price over the last year.
What exactly do you see as a disincentive for choosing #2, since case 2 beats case 1 in all cases?
Re: Sweet sanity: 75% of Americans say infringement fines should be under $100
#59Let's figure out what the fine should be with math! :D
(10+0)/2*0.32 + (100+11)/2*0.43 + (1000+101)/2*0.14 + (5000 + 1001)/2 * 0.03 + (100000+5001)/2*0.01 + (250000+100001)/2*0.01
= $2467.56Re: Sweet sanity: 75% of Americans say infringement fines should be under $100
#60In a real democracy the majority would actually make the laws. A fine of $100 sounds fair, it is still a punishment and would be much more acceptable to police heavily (and with less lawyers involved). I would be fine with automated fines of $100 being handed out to people downloading a file illegally and I think that would be a more effective deterrent than the present lawsuit madness that rules copyright.